Politics
'Don't Ask' repeal votes in Senate committee in question
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are still working to obtain the necessary support — which possibly could be only one more vote — for passage of an amendment during upcoming Senate committee consideration of major defense budget legislation.
Those seeking an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are hoping the compromise measure unveiled earlier this week would enable more support for repealing the law. The issue is expected to come before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday or Thursday during its markup of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
The compromise measure unveiled on Monday by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) would repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute, but only after the Defense Department completes its study on the issue at the end of the year and the president and Pentagon leaders certify that the change wouldn’t undermine military readiness. Additionally, the measure has no non-discrimination language and would return authority on discharges to the Pentagon.
A vote is also expected to take place later this week in the House when the defense budget legislation reaches the floor. Supporters of repeal have said they feel they’re in a good position in this chamber, so the remaining question is whether passage can occur in the Senate committee.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he doesn’t know whether he’ll have the votes for repeal even with the compromise measure.
“I haven’t talked to anybody other than Joe Lieberman about this in the last few days, so I haven’t talked to the people who will be the ones that we need to get it over the top,” he said. “I just haven’t talked to them. I will this afternoon as soon as I leave this press conference.”
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Tuesday that he thinks the vote in the Senate Armed Services Commitee is “very tight.”
“We’re not there,” he said. “It’s going to turn on one or two votes, so we’ll just have to see. But it’s the time for everybody to be weighing in, including the administration, to be asking senators for the votes.”
But even with the new proposal, Sarvis said he “hasn’t seen” any new votes yet in the Senate committee as a result of the compromise.
“Some senators thought that it would help, and I don’t know that that’s turned out to be the case, but time will tell,” he said. “It may well help far more in the House, but in terms of the Senate Armed Services Commitee so far, we haven’t seen a huge difference.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said he thinks supporters of repeal are “closer than ever” in finding votes necessary in the Senate committee for an end to the law.
He said opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have been able in recent days to solidify “at least one or two” more votes that they had been leaning toward voting in favor of repeal, but had not previously expressed an explicit commitment.
“There are a lot of implications that go along with a modifier like ‘soft’ or ‘leaning,'” he said. “Another bombshell like the Gates letter could have torpedoed those votes in that category, and now we got them locked. I don’t think there’s anything that could torpedo those votes and change them back to a ‘no.'”
With 15 votes necessary for a successful vote in the Senate committee, Nicholson said he thinks there are 13 or 14 committed votes in favor of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“I really feel like we’re down to one vote and everyone is trying to go after Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd,” he said. “I am very confident that we will secure the last couple of votes to get this. It appears very likely.”
LGBT organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, had lobbied six senators through a grassroots campaign to vote in favor of repeal: Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.).
Two of those votes recently became committed. On Tuesday, Dan McLaughlin, a Bill Nelson spokesperson, told the Blade the Florida senator would vote in favor of repeal. On the same day, Brown said he would vote against the amendment as proposed by Lieberman, according to the Boston Globe.
Ben Nelson has told the Blade he opposes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal at this time, although it’s unclear whether his position has changed following the announcement of the compromise measure. He told reporters on Tuesday that he’d issue a statement on Wednesday to clarify his position on the matter.
Webb made comments to reporters on Tuesday suggesting he would vote ‘no’ if repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” came before him in the Senate, although he didn’t explictly say how he’d vote.
“If you look at what the White House said and if you look at what Secretary Gates said — they both said they would go through the process that Adm. Mullen and Secretary Gates announced in February,” Webb said. “I don’t see any reason to preempt that process.”
Asked to clarify whether his statement means he’ll be voting “no,” Webb said nothing and walked away.
Bayh’s office didn’t response to the Blade’s request to comment on how he’d vote on the issue. Nicholson said he believes Bayh is leaning “yes” and said he thinks he’ll vote in favor of repeal.
Staying mum on the issue is Byrd. In a statement, Jesse Jacobs, a Byrd spokesperson, said the senator “has not taken a position for or against” the compromise measure.
Nicholson said it’s possible that Byrd — the oldest senator on Capitol Hill who often doesn’t appear to vote unless needed — would abstain from voting on the issue.
“I just can’t imagine that Sen. Byrd will go out of his way to vote the wrong way,” Nicholson said. “It’s very likely he’s not going to be there. In order to vote the wrong way, he would have to give a proxy for a ‘no’ vote, and I just can’t imagine him putting himself down the wrong side of history like that and going out of his way to do that.”
The White House
HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage
Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.
The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.
The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.
The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.
“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”
Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.
“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”
“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”
This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.
In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
-
Theater5 days agoDon’t miss summer productions at Clear Space in Rehoboth Beach
-
Federal Government4 days agoTodd Blanche’s record on LGBTQ issues comes under scrutiny as he takes over DOJ
-
Sports4 days ago2 former NBA players launch cheap anti-trans stunt to exploit WNBA rules
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days agoHISTORIC: Susan Stewart elected Rehoboth’s first out mayor
